16/2/2014

World agriculture: towards 2015/2030

Produced by: Economic and Social

Development Department
Title: World Agriculture: Towards 2015/2030.
Summary Report...
Espaol Franais

PDF version
More details

Food and Agriculture in National and

International Settings
Poverty and agriculture
Except in most of sub-Saharan Africa,
developing countries are making progress
towards the UN goal of halving the incidence of
poverty by 2015. Growth in agriculture and in
non-farm rural activities, as well as
improvements in nutrition, will be central to
continuing success. Sub-Saharan Africa's
continuing descent into poverty is cause for
serious concern.

Under-nourishment is not merely a

symptom of poverty but also one of its
causes. Poverty is not simply a lack of
income or consumption but includes
deprivation in health, education, nutrition,
safety, legal and political rights, and
many other areas. All these dimensions
of deprivation interact with and reinforce
each other.

Over the past decade, poverty and the

related issue of inequality have moved to the top of the international development
agenda. At various summits from the early 1990s onwards, world leaders have
proclaimed their commitment to poverty reduction and adopted a series of related
targets. These cover a wide range, from infant and child mortality to school enrolment,
from gender equality to maternal mortality, from access to health and reproductive
health services to the adoption of national strategies for sustainable development. The
UN Millennium Declaration, adopted in September 2000, consolidated most of these
targets, including that of halving the proportion of people living in extreme poverty by
2015. The international targets, and the indicators used to assess progress towards
them, should be viewed neither as finely tuned criteria to guide policy and spending
priorities nor as accurate measures of progress. In many poor countries the necessary
data are not reliable and may not even be up-to-date. Nor are they necessarily
comparable between different countries. But the targets are useful in drawing attention
to persistent poverty, and in influencing opinion and creating a sense of urgency among
the public, politicians and the development community. The indicators can also serve as
http://www.fao.org/docrep/004/y3557e/y3557e07.htm#h

1/14

16/2/2014

World agriculture: towards 2015/2030

rough guides to assess whether progress is being made.

Overall progress and prospects

At the beginning of the twenty-first century, over 1.1 billion people are living in extreme
poverty, subsisting on less than US$1 a day. Significant, but uneven, progress is being
made towards meeting the 2015 target of halving the proportion of people living in
poverty in developing countries. This proportion fell from 32 percent in 1990 to 25
percent in 1999. However, because of population growth, the reduction in numbers was
less dramatic, from 1 269 million to 1 134 million.
The
Selected targets Associated with the United Nations Millennium Development Goals
regional
picture
The following targets are to be achieved by 2015, against a base year of 1990:
was highly
diverse. In
Halve the proportion of the world's people whose income is less than US$1 a
East Asia,
day
poverty
Halve the proportion of people who suffer from hunger
fell
very
Halve the proportion of people without access to safe drinking water
Ensure full primary schooling for all children
steeply
Ensure equal access to all levels of education for boys and girls
during the
Reduce under-five child mortality by two-thirds
1990s. In
Reduce maternal mortality by three-quarters
South
Halt and begin to reverse the spread of HIV/AIDS, malaria and other major
Asia,
diseases.
although
the
proportion
of poor fell, the total number remained almost constant. In sub-Saharan Africa, the
proportion remained virtually unchanged, while the number rose steeply.
The latest World Bank projections suggest that the target of halving the proportion of
people living in poverty in the developing countries by 2015 can be achieved. However,
even if this target were met, because of population growth the result would be a fall of
less than 30 percent in the absolute number of poor. In sub-Saharan Africa the target
seems unattainable: projections suggest only a small reduction in the proportion and a
continued rise in the number living in poverty.
Even the World Bank projections assume faster economic growth rates than in the
past. The Bank stresses that, if the slow growth of the 1990s persists, then the number
of people living in extreme poverty will remain near current levels for the next 15 years.
Faster growth of incomes is essential for poverty reduction everywhere. Reducing
inequality is equally crucial, especially in countries where this is pronounced. According
to some estimates, countries where inequality is high will need twice as much growth
as those where it is low to meet the poverty target.

Why better nutrition has to come first

Food and agriculture are centrally involved in both the generation and the reduction of
poverty.
Under-nourishment is a characteristic feature of poverty and a direct violation of a
universally recognized human right. It also deepens other aspects of poverty, in the
following important ways:
http://www.fao.org/docrep/004/y3557e/y3557e07.htm#h

2/14

16/2/2014

World agriculture: towards 2015/2030

It leaves people more susceptible to illness. Episodes of illness in turn reduce the
intake and absorption of food, producing a vicious downward spiral in which
hunger and disease feed off each other.
When pregnant and nursing mothers are undernourished, babies are born
underweight and start life with a nutritional handicap that can affect their health
throughout their lives.
Under-nourishment can affect brain development in the womb and attentiveness
in class, and so is associated with poor educational performance.
When energy and protein intakes are inadequate for the requirements of work,
muscle mass and labour productivity can be reduced. Along with illness, this
affects wages and earnings. Studies have shown that a 1 percent increase in
body mass index (BMI, a measure of weight for a given height) is associated with
an increase in wages of more than 2 percent, at least over part of the range of
BMIs.
Micronutrient deficiencies can also reduce work capacity. Surveys suggest that
anaemia caused by iron deficiency is associated with a 17 percent loss of
productivity in heavy manual labour.
Investment and risk-taking are essential for economic growth, but people who live
on the edge of starvation are likely to be extremely cautious about investing, since
they cannot afford a drop in production or earnings.
All this means that widespread hunger can depress the performance of whole
economies. Studies in Bangladesh, India, Pakistan and Viet Nam estimate that
adult productivity losses due to the combined effect of stunting and deficiencies of
iodine and iron consider-ably reduce the growth of incomes.
Growth in incomes is essential if under-nourishment is to be reduced, but it is not
enough by itself. Better public services - such as improved female and nutrition
education, safe drinking water and improved health services and sanitation - are also
needed. Interventions in these areas must be carefully targeted towards the most
vulnerable groups.

Agriculture holds the key

The development community today shares the same broad recipe for poverty reduction.
The recipe involves fostering pro-poor economic growth and favouring poor people's
access to all the services and other factors that support poverty eradication and define
an acceptable standard of living: markets, credit and income-producing assets, basic
education, health and sanitation services, safe water, transport and communications
infrastructure, and so on. Providing access to these basic human rights is seen as an
end in itself, but it will also boost economic growth.
Income growth is essential if
under-nourishment is to be
reduced, but better public
services - improved female
and nutrition education, safe
drinking water, and improved
health services and
sanitation - are also crucial.

Growth in the agricultural sector has a crucial role to play

in reducing poverty. The International Fund for
Agricultural Development (IFAD) estimates that seven
out of ten of the world's poor still live in rural areas. They
include smallholders, landless labourers, traditional
pastoralists, artisanal fishers and marginalized groups
such as refugees, indigenous peoples and femaleheaded households.

Many of the rural poor work directly in agriculture, as

smallholders, farm labourers or herders. Their incomes can be boosted by pro-poor
measures, such as ensuring fair access to land, water and other assets and inputs,
and to services, including education and health.
http://www.fao.org/docrep/004/y3557e/y3557e07.htm#h

3/14

16/2/2014

World agriculture: towards 2015/2030

Agricultural growth spreads its benefits widely. Growth in the incomes of farmers and
farm labourers creates increased demand for basic non-farm products and services in
rural areas. These include tools, blacksmithing, carpentry, clothes, processed food
bought from roadside kiosks, and so on. These goods and services are often difficult to
trade over long distances. They tend to be produced and provided locally, usually with
labour-intensive methods, and so have great potential to create employment and
alleviate poverty. Surveys in four African countries have shown that between one-third
and two-thirds of income increases in rural areas are spent on such local goods and
services.
Progress in poverty alleviation: number of people living in poverty, 1990 to 2015

Source: World Bank (2001b)

For the poor, the rural non-farm sector offers a relatively easy escape route from
poverty. Rural non-farm enterprise often requires little capital or training to set up and so
offers many of the rural poor opportunities to find work and raise their incomes. Nonfarm activities provide 44 percent of rural jobs in Asia and 25 percent in Latin America.
In rural India they provide 60 percent of the income of the poorest 20 percent of the rural
population.
But the rural non-farm sector cannot
grow independently: agriculture must Growth in agriculture and in associated rural
grow first, to generate the increased non-farm employment can have a broad impact
demand for non-farm products. There in reducing poverty in rural areas, where seven
can be a general rise in local wages only out of ten of the world's poor live.
when growth in both farm and non-farm
activities has soaked up most of the pool of rural underemployment.
And agricultural growth alone may not always produce a decline in rural poverty. If
landholdings are very unequal, increased incomes from farming may accrue almost
http://www.fao.org/docrep/004/y3557e/y3557e07.htm#h

4/14

16/2/2014

World agriculture: towards 2015/2030

entirely to large-scale farmers or absentee landlords, who may either save it or invest it
outside the rural areas, on urban or imported goods. In such cases the impact of
agricultural growth on poverty may be limited, and policies to reduce inequality of
access to assets such as land, water and inputs will be needed instead.
What economic policies at national level foster agricultural growth in developing
countries? During the 1950s and 1960s it was widely believed that only industrial growth
could deliver economic development. As a result, industry was protected while
agriculture was heavily taxed or afforded low priority. By the end of the 1970s, there was
increasing emphasis on the structural reform of economies. It was hoped that
privatization, the liberalization of internal and external trade, lower taxes and reduced
government intervention would produce higher economic growth and reduce the bias
against agriculture.
These measures have been widely adopted. However, there is little evidence to show
that they have done much to increase growth, either in gross domestic product (GDP)
as a whole or in agricultural GDP. This suggests that, badly needed though they were,
these measures are not enough in themselves and need to be supplemented with other
policies.

International trade and globalization

Freer trade is highly prized as a route to peace and prosperity. In developing countries,
particularly in the least developed economies, freer trade in agriculture can raise
incomes greatly, be an important source of foreign exchange and act as a catalyst for
overall development. For most countries, food imports are already an important source
of supplies and will continue to contribute to food security.

Rising agricultural trade deficits in developing countries

The trade patterns of developing countries have changed rapidly over the past 40 years:
Agricultural exports have grown modestly compared to those of manufactured
goods, resulting in a dramatic decline in the share of agricultural exports in total
traded merchandise, from about 50 percent in the early 1960s to about 6 percent
by the year 2000.
The overall agricultural trade surplus of these countries has virtually disappeared
and the outlook to 2030 suggests that they will become, as a group, net importers
of agricultural commodities, especially of temperate-zone commodities.
The least developed countries (LDCs), also as a group, became net importers of
agricultural products as early as the mid-1980s. Their agricultural trade deficit has
been widening rapidly and could quadruple by 2030.

Trade reform has lowered the barriers to trade,

increased global economic integration,
enhanced productivity and boosted incomes and will continue to do so. Not all countries or
stakeholders have been winners, but national
and international policy interventions could
soften the impact on losers. Special measures
http://www.fao.org/docrep/004/y3557e/y3557e07.htm#h

Both policy and market factors are driving

these changes. On the policy side,
barriers to trade and support for
domestic production in the developed
(mainly the OECD) countries have held
back the growth of agricultural exports
5/14

16/2/2014

World agriculture: towards 2015/2030

from the developing world. These trade

distortions impose high costs and create
widespread
inefficiencies.
In
the
countries that use them, they exact higher prices and taxes from consumers and
taxpayers. For other countries, they limit access to export markets and introduce unfair
competition in domestic markets. They hold world commodity prices down and so hold
back the development of agriculture, especially in developing countries where less
government support is available.
could ensure that a greater share of the
benefits of trade go to developing countries.

On the market side, growth in agricultural exports from developing countries has been
held back by sluggish and largely saturated demand in developed markets, in particular
for tropical products such as coffee, cocoa and tea.
Agricultural trade balance and share of agricultural exports in merchandise trade, 1960 to
2000

Source: FAO data

Ambitious goals, modest achievements

The benefits of trade reform experienced by many outward-oriented economies have
created the momentum to continue reducing the barriers to trade. Many developing
countries had already liberalized aspects of their agricultural trade since the 1980s
under structural adjustment reforms. These reforms, and the full range of policies that
affect agricultural trade, were subjected to systematic multilateral controls for the first
time by the Uruguay Round's 1994 Agreement on Agriculture (AoA).
The Agreement was hailed as a watershed, yet so far the results have been modest
and often disappointing. FAO studies have found that, for most agricultural
commodities, the AoA's impact on prices and levels of trade has been negligible, as has
its impact on many developing economies. Producer support of all types remains high
in developed countries: in 2000 it totalled US$245 billion in the OECD countries. This
figure rises to US$327 billion if more general transfers to agriculture are included.
Tariffs continue to curb trade. Under the AoA, non-tariff barriers such as quotas were to
be replaced by equivalent tariffs. In addition, developed countries agreed to reduce all
their tariffs by an average of 36 percent, over a period of six years, with a minimum of
http://www.fao.org/docrep/004/y3557e/y3557e07.htm#h

6/14

16/2/2014

World agriculture: towards 2015/2030

15 percent for any one trade item. Developing countries agreed to reduce tariffs by 24
percent over a ten-year period. The least developed countries were not required to
make any reductions.
The reductions made since 1994 have complied with these goals, but it is not clear that
market access has improved significantly. Developed country tariffs have been cut by
an average 37 percent, but the deepest cuts have been mainly for unprocessed tropical
crops that already had low tariffs. Commodities also produced in developed countries,
and processed products, benefited much less. For example, maximum allowable tariffs
agreed by the European Union (EU) under the AoA were 86 percent on beef and 215
percent on frozen beef, whereas they are only 6 percent on pineapples but 25 percent
on processed pineapples.
Domestic support remains high. Government support for agriculture can also distort
trade, by allowing domestic producers to sell at lower prices than would otherwise be
economically viable.
The AoA also covered domestic support. Several types of support, such as research,
infrastructure and environmental programmes, were exempted. Developing countries
could also exclude measures of a developmental nature, such as agricultural and rural
development programmes.
The AoA required developed countries to make a 20 percent reduction in their support
for agriculture, developing countries a 13.3 percent cut and least developed countries
none. These cuts were to be made with reference to a 1986-88 base, over a period of
six years for developed countries and ten years for developing countries.
In reality many countries have faced much less pressure to reduce support for, and
protection of, their agricultural sector. This is mainly due to the fact that the
commitments to liberalize were based on historically high levels of support and
protection. These so-called "bound" levels remained high enough to maintain much of
the protection previously enjoyed, even after the cuts had been implemented. Indeed,
total support to agriculture in the rich OECD countries was actually higher in 1998-2000
than before the AoA.
Export subsidies are still substantial. The AoA brought direct subsidies for agricultural
exports into an international trade agreement for the first time. Indirect subsidies, such
as export credit guarantees and food aid, were also covered. Developed countries
agreed to reduce their expenditure on subsidies by 36 percent and developing countries
by 24 percent. Reductions in the volume of subsidized exports were also negotiated,
with reductions for each commodity of 21 percent required for developed and 14
percent for developing countries. Least developed countries undertook no commitments
to reduce their subsidies. The EU accounts for the bulk of direct export subsidies: in
1998 it spent US$5.8 billion, more than 90 percent of all such subsidies covered by the
AoA.

More liberalization would mainly benefit developed countries

According to most studies, complete liberalization of agricultural trade could produce
valuable overall welfare gains, but some groups would win while others would lose. The
benefits would go mainly to consumers and taxpayers in industrial countries, where
agriculture is most protected, and to developing country agricultural exporters. In
contrast, urban and landless rural consumers in developing countries might end up
paying higher prices for some foodstuffs, especially cereals, milk, meat and sugar.
http://www.fao.org/docrep/004/y3557e/y3557e07.htm#h

7/14

16/2/2014

World agriculture: towards 2015/2030

Specific measures would be needed to help such loser groups.

Potential annual welfare gains from agricultural trade liberalization

Source: Anderson et al. (2000)

The results of studies on the impact of agricultural trade liberalization vary according to
the assumptions they make. For example, a recent study found that complete
liberalization would boost global incomes by US$165 billion a year. The largest benefits
would arise from reforms in developed countries, but the lion's share of these,
amounting to some US$121 billion, would also remain in these countries. Developing
countries stand to gain significantly (by US$31 billion) only if they also liberalize their
own trade.
The current FAO study also looked at the impacts of gradually removing price supports
and other subsidies over the 30 years to 2030. The analysis focused on the expected
price effects for consumers and producers, in both developed and developing countries.
It found that international prices could rise moderately, while prices would fall
substantially in countries with high levels of protection. Producers trading at international
prices would gain, while those producing at inflated protected prices would lose. Like the
study described above, the FAO study found that the benefits for consumers in hitherto
protected OECD markets could be high, but it also stressed that high processing and
distribution costs in these countries could mean that lower prices for raw products
would not translate into substantially lower prices for the final consumer. Consumers in
developing countries, where processing and distribution margins are much smaller,
stood to lose more significantly. Trade liberalization would not change the main
conclusion of this study, that developing countries will increasingly become net
importers of agricultural products - but it would slow the process somewhat.
Why do developing countries stand to gain
so much less from trade liberalization than
developed countries? One reason is that
many developing countries have become
net importers of agricultural products, and
modest increases in world prices are
unlikely to turn them into net exporters. In the importing developing countries,
consumers stand to lose more from freer trade than domestic producers are likely to
gain.
Eliminating all agricultural policy distortions
could produce global annual welfare gains
of up to US$165 billion, of which threequarters would go to developed countries.

The finding that gains for producers in developing countries would often be small
reflects a number of factors:
http://www.fao.org/docrep/004/y3557e/y3557e07.htm#h

8/14

16/2/2014

World agriculture: towards 2015/2030

Many studies show that a cut in OECD subsidies would merely bring about an
exchange of market shares between OECD countries. This is because OECD
trade distortions are concentrated on temperate-zone commodities - products for
which, in the majority of developing countries, the production potential is limited
more by agro-ecological conditions than by policy distortions abroad.
Where developing countries have a comparative advantage - in such
commodities as coffee, cocoa, tea, spices and tropical fruits - developed
countries' import tariffs have already been reduced and the effects of further
liberalization are likely to be small.
Higher and more stable international prices are not always transmitted to farmers
in developing countries. Inadequate infra-structure and inefficient marketing
systems insulate many of them from world markets.
Farmers in developing countries may not gain as long as domestic policies
largely offset the price incentives from international markets. Most developing
countries heavily taxed their agriculture throughout the 1970s and 1980s; many,
including India, China and Pakistan, continued to do so during the 1990s.

How can trade liberalization benefit developing countries?

What measures and strategies would ensure that the poorest and most vulnerable
countries and population groups receive an equitable share of the benefits of trade
liberalization?
The aim should be to:
Eliminate direct and indirect export subsidies.
Rationalize and simplify access to OECD markets. Specifically, rationalize and
simplify trade preferences, assist countries whose preferences have been eroded
through multilateral liberalization, and deepen existing preferences for very poor
countries.
Reduce OECD tariffs and consumer taxes on processed agricultural products,
with special preferences for products from developing countries.
Eliminate tariff escalation for tropical commodities, in the developing as well as
the developed countries. Tariffs are rising even faster in the former than in the
latter group. The purchasing power of China's or India's rapidly growing middle
class could turn these countries into major importers of some tropical agricultural
products over the next 30 years.
Create or expand safety nets and food distribution schemes, to ensure that lowincome consumers are not penalized by rises in the prices of food imports.
If developing countries are to benefit from freer trade, their farmers will need to become
more responsive to the rising and more stable international prices that should result
from such trade. A massive mobilization of resources is needed to improve agricultural
productivity at home and thus competitiveness abroad. The most important measures
are increased credits for rural areas, and more investment in all aspects of support for
agricultural production and processing, including rural infrastructure (irrigation,
transportation, storage and marketing), research, education and training, and standard
setting and quality control.
Substantial gains would also result from other policy reforms. In developing countries,
removing taxes on agricultural exports and tariffs on non-agricultural imports
(machinery, fertilizers and pesticides) would improve the terms of agricultural trade and
help farmers compete on international markets. In developed countries, removing trade
barriers in labour-intensive manufacturing could bring benefits for farmers in developing
http://www.fao.org/docrep/004/y3557e/y3557e07.htm#h

9/14

16/2/2014

World agriculture: towards 2015/2030

countries. For example, a rapidly growing textile industry would create new income
opportunities for cotton farmers in the tropics.
Non-agricultural exports now account for more than 90 percent of the total exports from
developing countries, and more than 80 percent in the case of least developed
countries. Deeper and broader preferential access to the markets for manufactured
goods in some developed countries could make an important contribution to food
security in the least developed countries, providing them with the means to finance their
huge and rapidly increasing food import needs in the future.

Does globalization disadvantage the poorest countries?

Globalization is a modern word for a process that has been going on for centuries. New
technologies in the fields of transport and communications, from advances in sailing
and navigation to the steamship and the telegraph, have often reduced the cost of
shifting goods around the world in the past, leading to increased economic integration.
Recently, such technologies have included roll-on roll-off container systems and the
Internet, while lower trade barriers have further eased the movement of goods and
capital.
Globalization has brought lower prices to consumers, and investment and employment
to newly industrializing countries. But it has also raised widespread public concern over
the fate of the poorer developing countries, which are alleged to have been left further
and further behind as the rest of the world advances.
There is strong evidence that countries can be disadvantaged in the global marketplace
by their geographical endowments. Lack of infrastructure can make it hard to get
perishable products to markets, increasing marketing costs and so deterring
investment. As new investment heads for better-endowed areas, those countries and
regions with physical and infrastructural handicaps may be bypassed, falling further and
further behind and finding themselves trapped in a vicious circle of disadvantage.
The conditions for market integration differ vastly across regions

http://www.fao.org/docrep/004/y3557e/y3557e07.htm#h

10/14

16/2/2014

World agriculture: towards 2015/2030

Sources: World Bank data and Gallup et al. (1999)

Most poor countries are located in the tropics, where the higher incidence of crop and
livestock diseases and pests and excessive or inadequate rainfall are further factors
compromising their ability to participate in global agricultural markets. Distance from the
sea and a lack of navigable waterways can constitute additional disadvantages. Outside
Europe, average incomes in landlocked countries are only a third of those in countries
with a seaboard.
Sub-Saharan Africa, located mainly in the tropics and with a high proportion of
problematic soils, suffers multiple handicaps in the global marketplace. Only 21 percent
of this region's population live within 100 km of the coast or of a navigable river, against
89 percent in high-income countries. The proportion of the population that is landlocked
is seven times higher than in rich countries. Landlocked countries in Africa have
average freight costs almost three times higher than in high-income countries.
In contrast, regions of the United States, Western Europe and temperate-zone East
Asia within 100 km of a coastline account for a mere 3 percent of the world's inhabited
land area. Yet they house 13 percent of the world's population and produce at least 32
percent of the world's GDP.
http://www.fao.org/docrep/004/y3557e/y3557e07.htm#h

11/14

16/2/2014

World agriculture: towards 2015/2030

Combining data on population and income levels provides a revealing picture of the
distribution or density of incomes over different countries and regions. It underscores
the importance of infrastructure and/or geographical location, showing that:
Nearly all landlocked countries in the world are poor, except for a few in Western
and Central Europe which are deeply integrated into the regional European
market and connected by multiple low-cost trade routes.
Coastal regions, and regions linked to coasts by navigable waterways, are
strongly favoured relative to the hinterlands.
Sub-Saharan Africa stands out as the region that is most disadvantaged in terms
of unfavourable agro-ecological conditions as well as inadequate transport and
communications infrastructure.

Does globalization concentrate too much power in the hands of

multinationals?
Globalization is often charged with shifting power away from national governments to
multinational enterprises (MNEs). MNEs have been accused of abusing market power,
exploiting farmers and labourers around the world, and exerting pressure on
governments to reduce environmental and labour standards.
Today MNEs in food and agriculture operate across many country borders. They are
more and more vertically integrated, covering the whole sequence of operations from
producing and marketing seeds, through purchasing the crop, to food processing and
distribution.
When they control large parts of the supply chain, these large corporations can exert
monopoly selling or buying power, thereby putting pressure on farmers and retailers.
Through production contracts or joint ownership in land or livestock operations, they can
tie farmers into buying the company's inputs and selling their produce only to the
company. Farmers may also lose entrepreneurial capacity and become more or less
dependent workers on their own farms. It is also true that MNEs can and do move
operations from country to country in search of lower costs, including wage rates, and
of lower labour and environmental standards.

Benefits of globalization
However, if the often heard demands for global parity in wages and environmental
standards were met, this would remove a major competitive advantage of poorer
countries and could halt the flow of investment towards them, seriously prejudicing their
further development.
Countries that excluded MNEs would be excluding the best available channels for
getting their products to the global marketplace. MNEs usually upgrade local skills,
methods, standards and technologies as they expand in a country. For example, in the
late 1980s, in China's Heilongjang province, the multinational Nestl built rural roads,
organized milk collection points and trained dairy farmers in basic animal health and
hygiene.
Sprawling giants

Growing industry concentration has led to a situation in which just a few companies control large
shares of the agricultural production and processing chain. On the production side, only four
http://www.fao.org/docrep/004/y3557e/y3557e07.htm#h

12/14

16/2/2014

World agriculture: towards 2015/2030

companies control 50 percent of the US broiler market and 46 of the US pork market. On the
processing side, four companies control over 80 percent of US beef packaging and 60 percent of the
pork packing market. Concentration also extends into the agricultural upstream sectors, resulting in
a combination of horizontal concentration and vertical integration throughout the entire agro-food
chain. Cargill, for instance is not only amongst the top four beef and pork packers but also number
one in terms of domestic grain handling, as well as grain and soybean exports but also the second
largest compound feed producer and the number three turkey producer. On the upstream side,
Monsanto and Syngenta account together for 35 percent of the global market for crop protection and
19 percent of the one for seeds.

MNEs also force local firms to upgrade in order to remain competitive. Recent research
shows that the greater the degree of openness of a national industry to foreign
competitors, the greater its productivity. Indeed, the presence of foreign firms may be
the single greatest stimulus to improving productivity available in many developing
country settings.
The claim is often made that globalization makes the
world's poor poorer, but there is no evidence for this. Multinational enterprises
Countries may, however, become poorer in a relative often upgrade local skills,
sense as they fail to benefit from globalization. Recent methods, standards and
research conducted for the World Bank suggests that technologies as they expand
openness to international trade boosts economic growth. in a country. In so doing,
they force local firms to
Developing countries with policies that favour openness
upgrade in order to remain
increased their rate of GDP growth from 1 percent in the competitive.
1960s to 3 percent in the 1970s, 4 percent in the 1980s
and 5 percent in the 1990s. In contrast, much of the rest
of the developing world, containing about 2 billion people, is becoming increasingly
marginalized. The aggregate growth rate of these countries was actually negative in the
1990s.
Overall, the benefits of continuing globalization are likely to outweigh the risks and costs.
Negative impacts can be mitigated by appropriate policies. A combination of measures
including openness, investments in infrastructure, the promotion of economic
integration and limits on market concentration and control, could make globalization
work for the benefit for the poor.
Income density in the world

http://www.fao.org/docrep/004/y3557e/y3557e07.htm#h

13/14

16/2/2014

http://www.fao.org/docrep/004/y3557e/y3557e07.htm#h

World agriculture: towards 2015/2030

14/14